Case Digest (G.R. No. 210621)
Facts:
Alfredo Manay, Jr., Fidelino San Luis, Adrian San Luis, Annalee San Luis, Mark Andrew Jose, Melissa Jose, Charlotte Jose, Dan John De Guzman, Paul Mark Baluyot, and Carlos S. Jose v. Cebu Air, Inc., G.R. No. 210621, April 04, 2016, Supreme Court Second Division, Leonen, J., writing for the Court.
Petitioners (a group of twenty passengers, purchased by Carlos S. Jose) sued Cebu Air, Inc. (doing business as Cebu Pacific) for damages after nine members of the group were denied boarding on their intended return flight because the tickets issued for those nine showed an earlier flight time. On June 13, 2008 Jose bought 20 round-trip promo tickets at a Cebu Pacific branch for travel to Palawan (outbound July 20, 2008 at 08:20) and return (scheduled by Jose to be July 22, 2008 at 16:15). After payment Jose received printed tickets consisting of three pages; he accepted a recap of the first page and did not read the remaining pages.
On July 22, 2008 the group proceeded to Palawan airport to return. At check-in ground personnel informed them that nine passengers could not be admitted because their tickets showed a 10:05 a.m. return (not the 4:15 p.m. flight). The group rebooked immediately at a substantially higher cost (new tickets totaling about P65,000), paid in cash after card and dollar offers were refused, and five companions were accommodated while four were left overnight in Palawan (Jose later purchased four separate tickets for P5,205). Jose sent demand letters (September 3, 2008 and January 20, 2009) and filed a complaint with the Department of Trade and Industry; Cebu Pacific replied that Jose had been given a full recap and that the tickets bore the applicable promo restrictions.
Petitioners filed a Complaint for Damages before Branch 59, Metropolitan Trial Court (MTC) of Mandaluyong seeking actual, moral, exemplary damages and attorney’s fees. Cebu Pacific answered, denied negligence, argued Jose had 37 days to inspect the tickets, and counterclaimed P100,000 for expenses. On December 15, 2011 the MTC found Cebu Pacific liable, awarding P41,044.50 actual damages and P20,000 attorney’s fees, reasoning that as a common carrier Cebu Pacific had to exercise extraordinary diligence and its ticketing agent should have highlighted the differing schedule on the third page.
Cebu Pacific appealed to Branch 212, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Mandaluyong. On November 6, 2012 the RTC affirmed the MTC’s findings but deleted the attorney’s fees for lack of statutory ground. Cebu Pacific then appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA). On December 13, 2013 the CA reversed and dismissed the complaint, holding that the extraordinary diligence standard applicable to common carriers governs carriage but not the encoding/issuance act and that passengers must exercise ordinary care to read and verify ticket particulars. The CA denied Cebu Pacific’s counterclaim for lack of bad faith evidence.
Petitioners received the CA decision on December 27, 2013 and, foregoing reconsideration, filed a Motion for Extension of Time on January 13, 2014 seeking 30 more days; the petition for review on certiorari was filed in this Court on February 12, 2014. Although the filing was arguably late under Rule 45, sec. 2 and A.M. No. 00-2-14-SC (computation of time), the Supreme Court exercised its discreti...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Was the Petition for Review on Certiorari timely filed or otherwise barred by the Rules of Court and applicable administrative guidance on computation of time?
- Is Cebu Air, Inc. liable to petitioners for damages for issuing plane tickets with an allegedly erron...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)